Basically, since Fable was released, every single RPG henceforth has felt the incessant urge to include some sort of morality system, no matter how transparent.In Oblivion, it was basically measured by nothing more than an arbitrary points system that made you "good" for completing almost any quest and made you "evil" for completing every other quest. It had almost no impact on the game except for making some people like you more or less, and making the Nine love or hate you.In Fallout, there was a skeleton of a morality system, where your actions were what determined your alignment, but again, your alignment played a very small role in the game.

Personally, I'm getting tired of all these games trying to incorporate some good vs. evil system; I've always thought Fable was the only game that actually did it right, since that was what the game was based upon. Now even GTA clones are including the facade of a morality system. The main problem with these systems is that, besides being mostly ornamental, they always reward you for being good and punish you for being evil (higher shop prices, people liking you less, guards chasing you, etc.).

I would honestly like to see the entire concept of morality abolished in Skyrim, and leave a player's morality up to his conscience. Obviously there will still be crime and punishment, but with no actual records of your alignment, much more flexibility is given to the role-playing factor (such as being a virtuous thief or a murderer with a deluded sense of heroism).

What are your thoughts on the aspects of being "good" or "evil" in Skyrim?

I like the way it was in Oblivion more than in Fable. If you build up a reputation as murder, people should treat you as such, and the same goes for a benevolent character.

Fable was too extreme in implementing this IIRC, and the morality system had too much of an impact in my opinion. The only difference should be in what NPC's say to you, their initial disposition, and other small things like that.

I like the way it was in Oblivion more than in Fable. If you build up a reputation as murder, people should treat you as such, and the same goes for a benevolent character.

Yes, but you also gained Infamy for completing the Thieves Guild. Obviously, it makes sense that you would, but Infamy is Infamy in Oblivion, and so the world treats you like you're some kind of mass murderer when really, you just want to RP a Robin Hood type character.

quote Aurora

The only difference should be in what NPC's say to you, their initial disposition, and other small things like that.

And for that reason, I think the whole system should just be removed. What's the point of tracking your morality if it's only going to change people's reactions toward you? This could more easily be done by tracking only your crimes (murder count, theft count, assault count, etc.) and have specific greetings or dialogue generated from that.

I like the way it was in Oblivion more than in Fable. If you build up a reputation as murder, people should treat you as such, and the same goes for a benevolent character.

I agree with that. You cannot have people react to you the same way if your a murderer as if you were a priest. If anything, I would not mind i reactions being a little more extreme.

On the other hand I think it sucks that you need to be "good" to be able to do soem quest lines. It should be that the path you take for a quest changes based on your morality level or whatever you want to call it.

The only difference should be in what NPC's say to you, their initial disposition, and other small things like that.

And for that reason, I think the whole system should just be removed. What's the point of tracking your morality if it's only going to change people's reactions toward you? This could more easily be done by tracking only your crimes (murder count, theft count, assault count, etc.) and have specific greetings or dialogue generated from that.

*shrugs* Having two single values for infamy and fame was simpler I guess.

quote

What's the point of tracking your morality if it's only going to change people's reactions toward you?

It could do more, but having it change people's attitudes towards you is more realistic than them treating a mass-murderer exactly the same as a holy hero. I'd rather have it than not, regardless of whether it's implemented via infamy/fame or individual murder, theft and assault counts.

If Bethesda can actually nail a Good vs Evil system correctly, I'd be all for it. A lot of the ones you find in games already aren't too in depth, and really don't add a great deal to the game. Now if a Good vs Evil system was implemented where every action and choice of alignment you made affected everything you did, then that'd be great!

I think one of the biggest hurdles in implementing this, is the personalities of every character you're able to interact with. Some characters who may not be Evil themselves, may dislike you for being aligned to the Good side, solely for the reason that they see you as being an insufferable holier than thou type. It could also work in reverse for choosing to align yourself to the Evil side of the scale; those characters who are Evil could see you as trying to upstage them, or dislike you for succeeding in your misdeeds, where they have failed.

If every action affected morality, that would be Fable, which would be bad.The only way I'd like to see the implementation of alignment is if it could actually affect the outcome of the story (i.e. save the world or conquer it), but again, that would be Fable, and again, that would be bad.

If every action affected morality, that would be Fable, which would be bad.The only way I'd like to see the implementation of alignment is if it could actually affect the outcome of the story (i.e. save the world or conquer it), but again, that would be Fable, and again, that would be bad.

Why would it be bad if it's like fable in the system of morality? It's not the best morality system out there but it's pretty good I think.

I don't want a bar telling me whether I'm being a dick or not. Scrap the entire thing, and bring back Reputatiuon (including global and faction-based) from Morrowind. Different groups are always going to have different views on things. No action is objectively 'evil'.

Yes, but you also gained Infamy for completing the Thieves Guild. Obviously, it makes sense that you would, but Infamy is Infamy in Oblivion, and so the world treats you like you're some kind of mass murderer when really, you just want to RP a Robin Hood type character.

And in the same way the people of the Imperial City and the guards as well spoke of and hated The Gray Fox as if he was also a mass murderer.

I despise morality systems which define my character. Infamous and Bioshock are the biggest offenders I've played. They basically say you're either going to be the saviour of the world or the malevolent destroyer of it, and there is no in-between. Why force me, the player, to do that? Why can't I save my girlfriend and let the doctors die, yet still fight crime? Why can't I kill the men who turned me into a monster and still save the children, instead of killing them all? Games which say "You're either good or you're evil" do it very wrong, in my opinion.

What Oblivion and Fallout do is not define who you are as a character but only how other people see you. You can kill a bunch of people and take their water and then later on down the line, you can still give water to other people. You can be a massive murderer but manipulate it so that people view you as a hero. Having some kind of world where everyone is omniscient and knows if you're good or evil and what you've done and where you're forced to be one or the other... I just don't understand how anyone can find that appealing. It's especially hell for role-playing, too.

Okay so it was bland and had little consequence in Oblivion, true, but if they make it closer to Fallout and add to it then it can work greatly. Forcing you to be either 'Herp durp good' or 'Wrarrrrgarbl rape you evil' is only going to make the game much more closed off, however.

-------------------

We lean all day and some say,"That ain't productive."That depend upon the demon that you're stuck with.

It makes sense that one is punished for being an evil character. Who wouldn't over-charge or refuse to serve somebody who was evil? What guard wouldn't chase a known murderer? The changes might ought to be implemented in more of a "Reneer" way. The guard AI overhaul he made for Oblivion was excellent. Of course the player who chooses to murder thirty people in their sleep one night should be hunted, but only if his actions are known. There's the rub: nobody had to witness a crime you committed in Oblivion to know you were a crook.

Oblivion's system was a checklist of rights versus wrongs in the omniscient minds of every NPC. That's all that has to go. How about wanted posters circulating through towns for an escaped prisoner, or an at-large murderer? Changing clothes and growing/shaving facial hair (for males of course, let's not talk about bearded women) could negate NPC suspicion to keep things from getting impossible. Under Reneer's system more petty crimes such as pickpocketing and trespassing were forgotten after a few days.

When I think of morality systems in games I think of D&D games first, especially Baldur's Gate. They got it right with the reputation system.

Really? But GTA is all about breaking the law and committing horrible acts of unwarranted violence. If you don't do those things then you aren't doing anything except driving around according to real-world traffic laws or walking the streets.

Actually, Baldur's gate was pretty vestigial as well. It was basically the same as Fallout where your reputation went + or -. A having a higher or lower rep did nothing outside of decide who would be in your party and if it got too low, it would occasionally spawn guards that attacked you.

I actually really liked RDR's take, if not the execution, and I wouldn't mind Bethesda picking it up. The way it worked was that you had two traits: Fame and Honor. Impressive actions (good or bad) increased your fame. Then your honor would go up or down depending on the "morality" of those actions. Somethings (such as killing someone in a duel) would increase your fame, but have no impact on Honor, and vice versa. The whole system wasn't actually pulled off that well, since the story missions gave you way too much fame and honor. Also, the game couldn't seem to figure out what to do with it. One of the "rewards" for a high honor was the Duster Coat. Now, cool as the coat was, it didn't make much sense.

Sorry, Red Dead Redemption. Like I said, I didn't like what they ended up doing with the system, but I like the principles it was based on. There really should be a divide between fame and "morality." It makes sense in a game like TES.